Very much enjoyed it. The only things I found disappointing was Sylvestor Mccoy and his rabbit lead sleigh. The make up on the dwarves was not as good as that used for Gimili. They looked far too much like men and not enough like the rugged look of Gimili.

Gandalf was superb and I loved the opening with the dwarves showing up at Bagend. Talking of openings I thought it a good touch having Ian Holm's Bilbo and Frodo in a handful of scenes. I thought that tied this film into the Fellowship very neatly.

I agree to a certain extent with you about plots not sticking to the book discussion. I find it best not to compare and just enjoy the book for what it is and the film for what it is. Both having good points and not so good points. Overall I think Peter Jackson nailed it and am looking forward to the next one this Christmas.

Last edited by Rojblake on Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:33 pm; edited 2 times in total

I really enjoyed the first instalment of the Hobbit, even more than the LOTR films. I went in without many expectations and, as a long time fan of the books and the films, I was blown away. Sure, it isn't high art to any degree, it's a roller coaster ride - and a rollickingly good one at that! I am so keen for the next instalment, I can barely wait!

Ok, now for the clangers. This big one that grates is a really clumsy 'NOOOoooo!' as a cry of despair. Why do good filmmakers feel they have to put these tired cliches in? Am I thick?! Do I need to have the 'bad news' spelled out to me? It was almost as bad and as clunky as the one from that Star Wars prequel (in the third film I think).

I have to agree with Roj on the look of the dwarves, they largely look like the Men characters from the LOTR films, and not anywhere near as gritty as Gimili. The reason is perhaps that the dwarves are going to get a lot of screen time in the three films and, for some strange reason, ugly (looking) characters face an uphill battle in gaining sympathy from the audience. The audience simply doesn't relate to them. Sad, but true. Gimili got away with it cos he was a one off.

Yes, the rabbits thing is a little clumsy and a bit 'Kid-sy' in that it's an obvious appeal to younger audiences. On a similar note, now that I think of it, Saruman's 'Mushroom' line is a distinct nod to gen-x age audiences who may have misspent their youth. Mind you, I think McCoy is great as Radagast.

I can forgive deviations from the original. Being cinema, there's a different focus on imagery and the drama has to move quicker. The 'Stone Giants' sequence is great and is only a paragraph or so in the book. Also, the Necromancer plot looks like it is going to get played out more thoroughly than the book, which should be great!

Overall, Jackson has nailed it!_________________As I was saying, we all have to learn to live with disappointment

i went to see it twice...i wish i had gone again really...i cant wait for it to come out on dvd...the extended version of course:D
the scene with the trolls was my fav i have to say it was just how i imagined it to be and it was great to see dear old christopher lee wha a legend that guy is
and i have to say martin freeman nailed it as bilbo he was very good and put a lot into every scene he played...is a shame that ian holm was too old to play bilbo in this though...ive been listening to the bbc version of lord of the rings this last week or two and i have to say he was great on audio as frodo and id have loved to have seen him do a complete film of hobbit but was good to have the scenes in the beginning with frodo yay i wanna go see it again now